Human role in climate change now virtually certain, leaked IPCC report says

Dec 17, 2012 by Sunanda Creagh
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), which says it regrets the leak of it’s latest major report. AAP Image/Paul Miller

A leaked draft report by the world's top climate scientists has found that is virtually certain that humans are causing climate change but parts of it have been wildly misinterpreted by climate change deniers, experts said.

The fifth assessment of the (IPCC) was prematurely published on a blog called Stop Green Suicide by Alec Rawls, who obtained the document as a reviewer.

The draft report, which was still undergoing a peer review process, said that "there is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the due to an imbalance in the ."

"It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in . There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance."

Rawls drew attention to another part of the report about the effect of cosmic rays on global warming, saying in a statement that "admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything."

However, this section had been taken out of context and could not be used to cast doubt on the idea that human activity is warming the globe, said Steve Sherwood, one of the authors of the report and Co-Director of the Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

"I think the most interesting aspect of how this has been blogged by the climate deniers is that it reveals how deeply in denial they are," he said in an email to The Conversation.

"If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs like WattsUp, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence. This should open people's eyes as to the credibility of the alternative 'views' they are serving up."

Prof Sherwood said he had no comment on the contents of the report, which he described as "an unfinished work in progress."

"It has not fully incorporated feedback from the broader science community, has not been approved by the government bodies or UN, has not yet incorporated the most up-to-date work," he said.

"The official version will come out in September and will be a better, more accurate, more readable and more consistent reflection of the science."

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a researcher of climate change denial at the Cognitive Science Laboratories at the University of Western Australia, said the premature leak of the report was "dishonourable."

"Science is one of the most transparent endeavours humans have ever developed. However, for the transparency to be effective, preliminary documents ought to remain confidential until they have been improved and checked through peer review," he said in an emailed comment.

"The leak of a draft report by a reviewer who has signed a statement of confidentiality is therefore regrettable and dishonourable."

"However, what is worse than the leak itself is the distortion of the content of the draft chapter by some deniers (no, they are not skeptics)," he said.

Prof Lewandowsky said that the report's statement that humans have caused was a "virtual certainty" meant it's authors had 99% confidence in that view.

"That's up from 'very high confidence' (90% certain) in the last report published in 2007," he said.

"In other words, the scientific case has become even stronger and has now reached a level of confidence that is parallelled only by our confidence in some very basic laws of physics, such as gravity or thermodynamics."

To claim otherwise by cherry-picking part of a sentence out of context is absurd, he said.

"Although it illustrates the standard approach by which climate deniers seek to confuse the public. Climate denial lost intellectual respectability decades ago, and all that deniers have left now is to misrepresent, distort, or malign the science and the scientific process."

Dr Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist at the US' University Corporation for Atmospheric Research said Rawls was able to access a draft copy of the report because "any reviewer can sign up to get access to it all, although they sign a pledge not to do what has been done here."

"He should be thoroughly castigated," said Dr Trenberth.

"With regard to the report, I think it has a long ways to go to be up to previous standards, but there is still time," he said.

"The IPCC work is based upon published peer reviewed material and so it is not new. Some of it is, in fact, old and not up to date."

The IPCC said in a statement it regretted the leak, which "interferes with the process of assessment and review."

Explore further: Water crisis threatens thirsty Sao Paulo

Related Stories

Major climate change report draft leaked online: IPCC

Dec 14, 2012

A major report on climate change being compiled by the United Nation's climate science panel was on Friday leaked online in what appeared to be an attempt by a climate sceptic to discredit the panel.

Report: Climate science panel needs change at top

Aug 30, 2010

(AP) -- Scientists reviewing the acclaimed but beleaguered international climate change panel called Monday for major changes in the way it's run, but stopped short of calling for the ouster of the current leader.

Glacier alarm 'regrettable error': UN climate head

Jan 23, 2010

The head of the UN's climate science panel said Saturday a doomsday prediction about the fate of Himalayan glaciers was "a regrettable error" but that he would not resign over the blunder.

UN to get report on climate panel August 30

Aug 20, 2010

A UN-requested review of the world's top panel of climate scientists, accused of flaws in a key assessment on global warming, will be unveiled on August 30, the investigating committee said on Friday.

Recommended for you

New paper calls for more carbon capture and storage research

1 hour ago

Federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must involve increased investment in research and development of carbon capture and storage technologies, according to a new paper published by the University of Wyoming's ...

Coal gas boom in China holds climate change risks

6 hours ago

Deep in the hilly grasslands of remote Inner Mongolia, twin smoke stacks rise more than 200 feet into the sky, their steam and sulfur billowing over herds of sheep and cattle. Both day and night, the rumble ...

User comments : 139

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FrankHerbert
Dec 17, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
full_disclosure
1.7 / 5 (35) Dec 17, 2012
Phys.org pseudo science bloggers at their best.....
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (42) Dec 17, 2012
Here, let me help you step through the minefield of truth and lies:
Cosmic rays/Sunspots, these are the Earth's environment.
Carbon dioxide increase is from farming-wiki has a good article on "Dead Zones." Fossil fuels are not to blame, if we weren't killing the areas near shore, they'd suck up CO2 like no tomorrow.
Fossil fuels are not causing significant warming, only MELTING of the poles. Proof, HAVE YOU NOTICED SIGNIFICANT WARMING? No, and you can't as long as the arctic melt is sufficient to absorb heat generated. When the poles are gone, things will get interesting.
The heat released by fossil fuels is approximately equal to the increase of heat due to solar variations, with two significant differences; fossil fuel heat is released at the surface of the Earth, and on land.
Get ready for the next lie: Conclusive shattering proof the Earth is not warming.
Aren't you tired of the misconstrue? For more details see www. facebook.com/#!/groups/454689344557455/
axemaster
3.6 / 5 (28) Dec 17, 2012
Can't wait for the wave of "skeptics" to inundate this article. It's just a fun concept that people who couldn't even pass high school physics have the ability to influence national policy...

On a side note, is anyone else here from MIT? Just curious.
Lurker2358
2.2 / 5 (29) Dec 17, 2012
If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs like WattsUp, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence. This should open people's eyes as to the credibility of the alternative 'views' they are serving up."


My suggestion is they need to add a "layman's terms" 5th grade education equivalent section to the report for normal people to read. After all, most of the people 50 years and older have what amounts to about a modern 5th grade equivalent education.

Next, I suggest publishing data with 5 year and 10 year running averages in the graphs, in addition to raw data. These are easier to understand and harder to deny.

The "Death Spiral" graphs for arctic sea ice really show what is hard to see at first glance: a decadal doubling trend in melt rate.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (53) Dec 17, 2012
Saying the same thing multiple times does not increase confidence in the statement, and it should not increase confidence in that statement.

No one expects the IPCC to stray from their agenda.
FrankHerbert
2.9 / 5 (39) Dec 17, 2012
No one expects dogbert to stray from his agenda.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (29) Dec 17, 2012
Saying the same thing multiple times does not increase confidence in the statement

Ah. I see you have now switched sides to those who aknowledge climate change?
Because only the deniers respout stuff and expect it to convince anyone.
The scientists actually go out and do new simulations, collect more data, and draw the conclusions. The IPCC report is the summary of that ongoing process.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (38) Dec 17, 2012
antialias_physorg,

I have never denied climate change.

My comment was referencing the agenda of AGW.

ValeriaT
1.1 / 5 (30) Dec 17, 2012
IMO human contribute to droughts and spreading of deserts with aerosol pollution - but regarding the rise of CO2 levels and global temperatures, I'd still keep my geothermal theory of global warming.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (27) Dec 17, 2012
I'd still keep my geothermal theory of global warming.


I haven't yet heard the Zephyr Theory of Geothermal Warming. Would you like to fill me in?

(Remember, I'm really stupid so you'll have to use very simple analogies, nothing more complex than the flat water wave model.)
mememine69
2.1 / 5 (36) Dec 17, 2012
26 years of science NEVER saying it "WILL" be a crisis, just "MIGHT"
Tangent2
2.4 / 5 (29) Dec 17, 2012
I really hope they don't just leave it at that.. they should be suing this guy for breaching confidentiality that he had signed off on.
mememine69
1.9 / 5 (44) Dec 17, 2012
The weather Gods are angry my friend!
How many climate blame scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
None but they have consensus that it "will" change, maybe.
Science says we could be at the point of no return from unstoppable warming but that is part of the exaggeration they have committed. 26 years of science NEVER saying it "WILL" be a crisis and only saying it "MIGHT" be a crisis proves that it won't be a crisis. You can't have a little catastrophic crisis and a crisis that isn't a crisis isn't a crisis.
Not one single IPCC warning is without "maybes". Not one!
Millions in the world of science watch dozens of climate change protesters world-wide. Do the math. The evidence for scientific exaggeration is astounding and this Reefer Madness of Climate Blame and Climate Control has made us all look like omen worshippers for the history books. "I see the signs of change…."
packrat
2.8 / 5 (28) Dec 17, 2012
I don't think what people are doing is the only reason for what's happening but last year I had to cut my grass in the middle of Jan (Wilmington NC USA) which was the first time in 45 years that I've been cutting it. Today it's in the mid 60's f outside. My grandchildren have been playing outside today in shorts and it's normally in the low 40's this time of year. Whether it's warming overall is just up for grabs but it's DEFINITELY changing!
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (23) Dec 17, 2012
26 years of science NEVER saying it "WILL" be a crisis, just "MIGHT"

Ya know: That's how science works. if you can't predict something 100% then you don't say "will". Only pundits, idiots and politicians spout certainties which they can't back up fully.
Science always keeps a sceptical attitude - so it's very rare that you will find a scientist declare something to be incontrovertible.

However, stay aware that even with odds of a billion to one scientists still are open to the issue of false positives (though not as an 'equal' alternative to the 999999999 to 1 scenario, mind).
mememine69
1.8 / 5 (41) Dec 17, 2012
Certainty? Belief is faith. REASON is knowledge.
Yes we former believers demand certainty when you issue CO2 death threats to my kids!
The exaggerating scientists and you remaining believers will never say it "WILL" happen because you all know crisis was exaggerated.
You condemn billions of helpless children to the greenhouse gas ovens MAYBE? Not certainty for the ultimate emergency of climate crisis? TOO funny! Oh and thanks for the pesticides you world of science.
mememine69
1.7 / 5 (33) Dec 17, 2012
Big bang, comet hits, volcanoes. SUV gas........
"I see the changes. The change is real. The change is all around us. We cannot deny the change. Believe in the change. Change is real. Change is happening."

WHAT CENTURY IS THIS?
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (24) Dec 17, 2012
I guarentee the simple model I posted, yes, on facebook, respectable scientists, answers all questions, predicts and has predicted, intuitively, for 30 years.
& I would like to read ValeriaT's model. It comes to great conclusions, I wonder what you use as your starting point. Thx.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 17, 2012
Certainty? Belief is faith. REASON is knowledge.
Yes we former believers demand certainty when you issue CO2 death threats to my kids!
The exaggerating scientists and you remaining believers will never say it "WILL" happen because you all know crisis was exaggerated.
You condemn billions of helpless children to the greenhouse gas ovens MAYBE? Not certainty for the ultimate emergency of climate crisis? TOO funny! Oh and thanks for the pesticides you world of science.

Bizarre - the ultimate glass half-empty type. They got it wrong before, so they'll always be wrong. Look you may take that chance on a weekend picnic but surely not on such upheaval AGW will cause down the line. This when it is patently obvious for other reasons why alternative sources of power are essential and quickly.
PS: the only certainties in life are death and taxes.
mememine69
1.9 / 5 (36) Dec 17, 2012
You wouldn't still be shooting your mouth off like this if there were real legal consequences for issuing your CO2 death threats to billions of helpless children.
The world has walked away so now what?
*In all of the debates Obama hadn't planned to mention climate change once.
*Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses nor any of the debates.
*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.
*Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
Millions of people in the global scientific community watch the dozens of climate change protesters in the streets. Do the math. Crisis? What exaggerated crisis?
REAL planet lovers are happy a crisis wasn't real.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 17, 2012
wow, people get very rude and cynical over climate change articles.

I really don't see the big deal about the leak. Like the guy quoted in the article said: this isn't new stuff. The AR5 is based on published studies, so there shouldn't be any surprises here.

Have any of you looked at the AR5 draft? I started to browse through it, but I haven't gotten very far yet. There are some changes vs AR4, but most of it is about the same.

There is one thing I have always thought would make the AR's better. There are some issues where there's a spread of opinions amongst the experts (not the denier/skeptics. we'll leave them out of this). I'm talking about things like equilibrium time, where some scientist insist on a short ET, some long, and still others suggest a rapid followed by a longer ET. There are other issues like that, but that's just an example. The IPCC AR's tend to try to 'pick' one view, based on the opinion of the chapter author.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (25) Dec 17, 2012
continued:

I really don't prefer to use the IPCC as a primary source for these type of issues. I much prefer to go straight to the source, whether that's UC Boulder, NCDC, GISS, NCAR, Scripps, NOAA, NASA, or whatever, depending on the topic I'm looking up.

That's another reason I don't think it's appropriate to make such a big deal about the leak of the AR5.

On the plus side, the IPCC couldn't ask for better publicity than this. They're getting more headlines than they could ever hope to get when they release the actual final version.
mememine69
2 / 5 (37) Dec 17, 2012

We get it. You remaining believers need something and or someone to believe in so you accept a science authority that condmens the world to death. Maybe you just hate humanity and want to drag the rest of us down with you? What else do you do for fun besides scaring our kids, pull fire alarms, rubber neck car accidents...?

How be YOU be the first one to act like it's real? The millions of people in the global scientific community certainly are not acting like the end is near. Deny that!
RealityCheck
2.9 / 5 (35) Dec 17, 2012
HI mememine69.
We get it. You remaining believers need something and or someone to believe in so you accept a science authority that condmens the world to death. Maybe you just hate humanity and want to drag the rest of us down with you? What else do you do for fun besides scaring our kids, pull fire alarms, rubber neck car accidents...?

How be YOU be the first one to act like it's real? The millions of people in the global scientific community certainly are not acting like the end is near. Deny that!


Unlike some, I am not in the habit of calling people 'retards', but I will make an exception in your case. Are you really this dumb/biased? If a volcanologist or earthquake scientist gave you a 90% chance warning of catastrophe, would you do nothing/stay put until you receive a 100% certainty warning? It's people like you who can't see the wood for the trees that make a mockery of 'human intelligence'. Get off your ego-tripping high-horse and see the trend, you 100% idiot.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2012

We get it. You remaining believers need something and or someone to believe in so you accept a science authority that condmens the world to death. Maybe you just hate humanity and want to drag the rest of us down with you? What else do you do for fun besides scaring our kids, pull fire alarms, rubber neck car accidents...?

How be YOU be the first one to act like it's real? The millions of people in the global scientific community certainly are not acting like the end is near. Deny that!

Steady boy - I fear for your sanity.
BTW: It's you who are the denier.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (28) Dec 17, 2012
The weather Gods are angry my friend!
How many climate blame scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
None but they have consensus that it "will" change, maybe.
Science says we could be at the point of no return from unstoppable warming but that is part of the exaggeration they have committed. 26 years of science NEVER saying it "WILL" be a crisis and only saying it "MIGHT" be a crisis proves that it won't be a crisis. You can't have a little catastrophic crisis and a crisis that isn't a crisis isn't a crisis.
Not one single IPCC warning is without "maybes". Not one!
Millions in the world of science watch dozens of climate change protesters world-wide. Do the math. The evidence for scientific exaggeration is astounding and this Reefer Madness of Climate Blame and Climate Control has made us all look like omen worshippers for the history books. "I see the signs of change…."
-mememine69

Too bad that RealityCheck misunderstands how important words are. (contd)
FrankHerbert
2.9 / 5 (23) Dec 17, 2012
Please don't continue.
Strom Thurmond wasn't a racist since he fathered a child when he was 22 with a 16 yr old Negro maid who worked for his family. He met his daughter in 1941 and paid for her education.
-obama_socks
http://phys.org/n...don.html

Everyone, keep in mind the name of that article is "Asteroid that killed the dinosaurs also wiped out the 'Obamadon'," and THAT is the comment he posts. Report every post he makes until he is banned.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (28) Dec 17, 2012
(contd)
…and the necessity of "saying what you mean, and meaning what you say" when attempting to imply that something is an imminent threat where everyone is in some sort of danger and not some far-off possibility. AGW climate scientists are much too vague and complacent as to such AGW warnings, which might or might not convince people to change their styles of living if it's detrimental to our survival.

IF AGW is a definite and imminent threat, then say so. Don't beat around the bush with words like 'might be', 'may be', 'could be', 'should be', 'possibly', 'probably', and other indeterminably descriptive language.

mememine69 is correct that climate scientists should either shiit or get off the pot. (my bad) Kids are being taught in school about these "may be" and "might be" and scaring the hell out of them.

Higher levels of CO2 means that we all need to cut down on fossil fuels. But the solar tech still isn't available to all, even if it were incredibly efficient, which it isn't
obama_socks
1.1 / 5 (30) Dec 17, 2012
Everyone who likes Physorg, please REPORT the sock puppet troll, FrankHerbert for an attempt to censure, useless verbiage, being off-topic and continuously harassing and stalking others like me to get his ill-gotten attention. Thanks
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (30) Dec 17, 2012
My comment about Strom Thurmond was in reply to FrankHerbass's illusion that Senator Thurmond was a racist...and he was not. But FrankHerbass looks for racists and racism in every nook and corner. If he can't find one legitimately, he will make shiit up to slander whomever he can.
Beware of FrankHerbert aka Theghostofotto1923.

As I was saying, climatologists pushing AGW need to use more deterministic language if they hope to have everyone believing their "science".
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (24) Dec 17, 2012
My comment about Strom Thurmond was in reply to FrankHerbass's illusion that Senator Thurmond was a racist...and he was not.
-obama_socks

He said it again, OMG! What a dumbass.

Let's see here. Obama socks:
1) Opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act
2) Tirelessly defends Strom Thurmond in threads about extinct lizards

So is he:
a) a moron
b) a pussy tard
c) a gigantic racist
or d) all of the above?

Muahahahahahaha
obama_socks
1.1 / 5 (27) Dec 17, 2012
My comment about Strom Thurmond was in reply to FrankHerbass's illusion that Senator Thurmond was a racist...and he was not.
-obama_socks

He said it again, OMG! What a dumbass.

Let's see here. Obama socks:
1) Opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act
2) Tirelessly defends Strom Thurmond in threads about extinct lizards

So is he:
a) a moron
b) a pussy tard
c) a gigantic racist
or d) all of the above?

Muahahahahahaha
CrankHerbass

Liar
Muahahahahahahhah
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (27) Dec 17, 2012
FrankHerbass aka Theghostofotto1923 has once again hijacked a good thread on global warming. The nihilist nitwit does this in every thread.

Moderators...do your job and ban the user name of FrankHerbert...thanks
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (26) Dec 17, 2012
Here...I'll say it again. Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was not a racist.
FrankHerbert
3.1 / 5 (21) Dec 17, 2012
Just like you aren't? LMAO!

So is osama_socks:
a) a moron
b) a pussy tard
c) a gigantic racist
or d) all of the above?

Muahahahahahaha
mememine69
1.9 / 5 (31) Dec 17, 2012
Not one single IPCC warning says it "WILL" happen and not one single IPCC warning is without; "maybe" and "could be" and "might be" and "likely" and "possibly"....Deny that
Some crisis eh?
antonima
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 17, 2012
Its a bunch of bogus. The truth is that nautical commerce is to blame for global warming. Gigantic ships churn deep ocean waters which then prematurely surface and release their excess CO2. Thats right, DEEP OCEAN WATER which hasn't seen the surface for THOUSANDS OF YEARS has more CO2 than surface water!! Isn't this a little fishy? This natural carbonic acid then outgasses into the atmosphere, and voila! excess CO2 on an epic scale.

Put an end to nautical commerce today.
jyro
1.9 / 5 (34) Dec 17, 2012
The Earth has been getting warmer or colder for 4,000,000,000 years. The only constant in Earths environment is change. It will continue to change till it's consumed by the Sun.

Man has been on earth .00075% of Earth's age or 300,000 years.
Earth will continue to change after man is long gone.

The universe is dynamic. Suns supernova, galaxys collide, planets are formed and lost in blackholes daily.

Man is merely a brief observer, not the cause.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (18) Dec 17, 2012
And the 9 gigatonnes of Carbon that are emitted into the atmosphere each year through the burning of coil and oil, magically vanishes I suppose.

The molecules of CO2 are smart little things, and they know where they come from, so the ones that come from coal hitch a ride on UFO's that take them to Mars to join the Martian CO2 party.

"Thats right, DEEP OCEAN WATER which hasn't seen the surface for THOUSANDS OF YEARS has more CO2 than surface water!!" - Antonima

Of course. It is the ocean that is emitting CO2. That is why the CO2 concentration of the ocean is increasing.

Antinima... How do you manage to feed yourself?
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 17, 2012
People have been dying for a hundred thousand years. Therefore murder is impossible.

Yes. Your logic is sound.

"The Earth has been getting warmer or colder for 4,000,000,000 years." - ivro

"Man has been on earth .00075% of Earth's age or 300,000 years." - ivro

I presume that you are 8 years old... So, your chest has been moving in and out while you breathe for 8 years.

Preventing that movement for as little as .0001 percent of that time will cause you to die.

Since you are impressed by division by small numbers, please divide your volume by the volume of the visible universe and explain to us why such a small number justifies your continued existence?

We await your torrent of non-logic.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (19) Dec 17, 2012
No need since it is already Observed to be happening.

"Not one single IPCC warning says it "WILL" happen" - YouYouYouTard

Do you intend to remain an Idiot for the rest of your life?
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (18) Dec 17, 2012
"Too bad that RealityCheck misunderstands how important words are." - Cowardly Sox

Here are some important words from Sox.

"For the record, UFOs do exist and they are and have been visiting Earth...which is why I mentioned that their technology for cloaking may have been passed on to our scientists." - Obama Sox

Mental Disease.
jyro
2 / 5 (24) Dec 17, 2012
explain to us why such a small number justifies your continued existence?

existence dosen't require justification, I exist because I am, therefore, I exist.
Global warming exist, global cooling exist, rising sea levels exist, droughts exist.
It must make you feel really good to ask someone to justify their existence. It reminds me of Hitler and the Jews.
Prepare for global warming, don't waste resources fighting it. It's inevitable.
SamB
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2012
The Force has a strong influence on the weak minded

Obi-Wan Kenobi
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2012
Prepare for global warming, don't waste resources fighting it. It's inevitable.


An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Fighting it now won't stop it immediately. But not fighting it now WILL cause it to get much worse at a much faster rate.

And we need to deal with it before it becomes too much to handle. Humanity's resources aren't infinite.
unknownorgin
1.9 / 5 (26) Dec 18, 2012
"Denier" to deny facts; The constant parade of climate reports has taken on the aire of a political campain complete with "leaked reports" , name calling, doom and gloom, and sometimes outright lies to scare people into following the "cause". The statement "nobody is right if everybody is wrong" applys here because calling anyone with another opinion or a question about some statement made about global warming a "denier" shows a clear attempt to avoid any facts or opinions that do not conform to the GW mantra that is repeated over and over again. We will never know if there really is a problem as long as these reports are biased and full of politics, wild guesses ,doom and gloom predictions as well as numbers dropped that are cheery picked without any point of scale or reference.
Just the facts please!
Kedas
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 18, 2012
The deniers are probably more or less the same people who believe the world will end soon, so they are thinking why bother it will all be over soon.

And who put those thoughts in their heads, yes, people who want to sell things, again earn money based on naivety of others.
Summary headline 2050: Our desire to be rich destroyed the planet.
eduard_burian_3
1.1 / 5 (17) Dec 18, 2012
"Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a researcher of climate change denial at the Cognitive Science Laboratories.."

Would Peace Nobel Price apply for this scientific branch?

dav_daddy
1.7 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2012
I don't think what people are doing is the only reason for what's happening but last year I had to cut my grass in the middle of Jan (Wilmington NC USA) which was the first time in 45 years that I've been cutting it. Today it's in the mid 60's f outside. My grandchildren have been playing outside today in shorts and it's normally in the low 40's this time of year. Whether it's warming overall is just up for grabs but it's DEFINITELY changing!


Huh? I'm in Arizona and it is cold as hell here! Last winter was a warm one I have to admit.

I know I'm beating a dead horse with here hut if these Bozos really wanted to shut the deniers up ruling that the propagandist at Penn St who hid and lied about the existence of data that contradicted the AGW consensus. When a review board ruled that he had done nothing improper the conspiracy theorists didn't seem quite so crazy afterward.
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.6 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2012
Everyone who likes Physorg, please REPORT the sock puppet troll, FrankHerbert for an attempt to censure, useless verbiage, being off-topic and continuously harassing and stalking others like me to get his ill-gotten attention. Thanks


bamasox

Once again: pot, meet kettle.

No one is stalking you. You spew your garbage over a number of topics that others find interesting, until you pipe up, then people correct you/call out your BS only to be met with accusations of sock-puppetry (of which you are guilty and continually perpetuating), you are paranoid-delusional in your rants and fail to understand that it is not ONE, but MANY people that are sick of seeing your mental-fecal-finger-paintings.
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (24) Dec 18, 2012
I think Vendi should stop being nice. If you are too stupid to understand the science, what an imbalance in the energy budget means, or that there has been and still is ongoing, a net energy uptake in the earth system, why come here? I know it takes alot of thought to correlate massive changes in the earth system evidenced by observational data which are clearly outside the spectrum of natural variability, an insanely compressed timeline for such changes to be occurring, with a net energy uptake in the system. Any dynamic system responds to an increase in the energy that drives it by speeding up or heating up, the earth system is driven by thermal energy. If you can't grasp this you really are too moronic to be commenting on science articles, and your words are a direct reflection of your lack of understanding.

Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining to watch morons proudly wear the dunce hat while screaming about how much they like the color....for about 5 seconds.

XOXO
Rub
rubberman
3 / 5 (20) Dec 18, 2012
And what the Jedi said. Go hug some feet or hide inside some shoes, or whatever Obama's socks actually do....Obama would be embarrassed and ashmed if he knew how his socks behaved when he wasn't wearing them.
S_Bilderback
3.4 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2012
If global warming is man-made, the solution is to use fossil fuels more wisely, harness the surplus of ecological energy, and so on.

The results of these changes in human behavior will clean up the planet, improve human health, save natural resources for the next generations ...

Even if the IPCC is wrong, it is a win - win scenario if humans take on the behavior changes recommended by the IPCC.

There are two entities that would loose out by adopting the IPCC recommendations:
- The oil companies
- The government's tax base on the selling of fossil fuels

Weigh the interpretation of facts along side the motives of the interpreters and the answer is obvious to me.

Question: What gives this generation the rights to untethered use of Mother Earth's natural resources, where is the multi-generational energy plan?

Drilling more oil is the easy, short-term solution, fine. What is the responsible solution?
tadchem
2.8 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2012
"Transparent" science is MUCH more interesting to watch than science done behind closed doors and accessible only to a handful of selected peers before publication of the final draft. :)
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (23) Dec 18, 2012
Re: Professor Phil Jones on the 16 year plateau in global temperature:

"Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: 'Bottom line: the "no upward trend" has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.'

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn't changed his mind about the models' gloomy predictions: 'I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.'

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him 'worried', that period has now become 20 years."
ricarguy
2.2 / 5 (24) Dec 18, 2012
No realistic solutions are offered except that "we have to do something about climate change". (While China builds a new coal fired plant per week.) What must we do? Revert back 3 generations in our standard of living? Find a way to live our lives using energy that costs 4 times the price that we've had over our lifetimes or has the reliability of that in a 3rd world country?

ricarguy
2.1 / 5 (25) Dec 18, 2012
How many of you "concerned men of science" actually live your lives the way you demand society follow? Get together and create a community that kinda works, meeting your green goals. Give up your BMWs and Volvos (not when convenient, all the time). Give up your central air. No air travel, take only terrestrial mass transit. Internet or satellite communication is more than plenty for all the rest. Live with your solar passive heating system at 42^ latitude. No food should come from farther than 300 miles, half of it within 50 or locally produced in your commune. Do it on something like (and I'll give you an advantage because you deserve it after all) an income that is 133% of the median income. Show us dim-wits the way.
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 18, 2012
"How many of you "concerned men of science" actually live your lives the way you demand society follow?" Alot more of us than you think.

"No realistic solutions are offered......"

The way the world, as a whole, is living right now is not realistic if we are concerned with sustainable comfortable existence for all even 50 years into the future. Your fears are economically based, as are most peoples. If you want realistic solutions in a world driven by the bottom line, then, unavoidably, the realistic solution is eventually whom ever is left in 200 years has to live how you verbalize your fear of in your first post...other than the 1%.
Claudius
2 / 5 (25) Dec 18, 2012
"Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him 'worried', that period has now become 20 years."

And when the 30 year mark has been passed, he will want to extend it even further.

In the meantime, the world will embark on a very dubious and expensive program, all because certain scientists and politicians are afraid to admit they were wrong.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2012
Over the last several decades I have asked hundreds of Libertarians and Randites the same question.

The answer has always been the same.

"What gives this generation the rights to untethered use of Mother Earth's natural resources, where is the multi-generational energy plan?" - S-Bilderback

"I don't owe anything to future generations because they have provided me with nothing in exchange. There can be no legitimate contract between me and fictions that do not exist." - Libertarian/Randite

VendicarD
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2012
According to CloudieousTard there has been no warming for the last 20 years.

The data shown here tells us that Tard Boy is lying.

http://www.woodfo...93/trend

The rise in temp shown above is 0.28'C over 20 years.

"saying that 15 years without warming would make him 'worried', that period has now become 20 years." - CloudiousTard
full_disclosure
1.2 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2012
Pure politics.....that's all it has ever been...
Claudius
2 / 5 (23) Dec 18, 2012
http://www.woodfo...93/trend

Let's see... the plateau is for 16 years, not 22. Looking at the graph above, there is an obvious plateau since 1998.

Also, Phil Jones and others have admitted to the plateau.

Also, I do not descend to the muck racking attacks on character that so pervade these discussions. Childishly calling others names does not win arguments, it merely demonstrates puerile ineffectiveness.

rubberman
2.8 / 5 (19) Dec 18, 2012
@Claudius: 1998 was considered a climate outlier by a very signifigant margin when the year ended and the numbers were examined. It occurred during a strong El nino, 2-3 years from a solar maximum. We managed to plateau at this level through a decade marked by a descent into a solar minimum and more la nina than el nino conditions. This trend alone indicates a greenhouse forcing, hence the reason we have started hearing about the models you denialist guys love to bash starting to talk about step graphs, a new (hopefully less drastic) outlier followed by a plateau at the next level. If the increased GHG's were not at play, the global mean would drop when conditions for it were favourable to do so...not plateau. It's a basic concept that you seem intelligent enough to grasp.
PeterD
1.8 / 5 (26) Dec 18, 2012
I have an IQ of 180 (I've taken several IQ tests and answered every question correctly.) To me, anyone with an IQ of 130 is a barely functional idiot. Yes, we are having climate change, and possibly, global warming. Unknown to those who post about this subject, is the fact that everything that is happening now has happened several times since the last ice age, most recently, from about 800 AD to 1200 AD. We did not cause any of these past warming events and we are not causing the current one. Of course, it seems to have escaped the notice of all of you, that satellite data shows that there has been NO WARMING OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2012
Let's see... Looking at the graph, there is an obvious plateau since 1998. Also, Phil Jones and others have admitted to the plateau.

.... lets see. Can you see the "obvious plateaus" depicted by the blue lines in the following regression done multiple times over short time scales? Whereas, of course with such a complex integrated system much longer time scales are required.
From the same Daily Mail you quote re Mr Jones is also .... "He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was 'unlikely'. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote."
May I ask you where you think that graph will go once the ENSO cycle returns to it's warm phase? Or perhaps you think SST's in the central Pacific will stay permanently cool?
http://forum.slow...3744414;
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2012
"Prof Lewandowsky said that the report's statement that humans have caused global warming was a "virtual certainty" meant it's authors had 99% confidence in that view.

"That's up from 'very high confidence' (90% certain) in the last report published in 2007," he said.

"In other words, the scientific case has become even stronger and has now reached a level of confidence that is parallelled only by our confidence in some very basic laws of physics, such as gravity or thermodynamics.""

Ha, I predicted as much! 2 years ago (IIRC) I got 50 % risk that the next report would see a signal increase so that SNR would allow 3 sigma observation as in physics. I based that on gaussian approximations (many factors in signal and noise both). And of course method improvement would see the N(oise) part go down somewhat.

@TA: "NOTICED SIGNIFICANT WARMING?" Duh yeah, that is what the IPCC reports are all about, or there wouldn't be any reason to do them. Few denialists are stuck in "no warming".
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2012
@runrig: "Can you see the "obvious plateaus" depicted by the blue lines in the following regression done multiple times over short time scales?"

One should add that not even statisticians "are the dumb" when they want to lie (and most would lose their jobs doing so). *If you have a continuous physical system you need continuous math & stat models*, fer crying out loud!

Only denialists, that doesn't have the gears for making head and tail of an analysis, would do something like that. Literary, they start with 'the observation' that "man didn't do it/it isn't even wro... warming" and work 'their problem' from there.

It is cute, it is hilarious, but it is also scary. Who are they to try to riddle what we need to do with the world? They shouldn't have an "analysis license". They _definitely_ shouldn't be on a reviewer list as they lack competence besides them showing themselves off as lying scumbags.
Caliban
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2012
The Earth has been getting warmer or colder for 4,000,000,000 years. The only constant in Earths environment is change. It will continue to change till it's consumed by the Sun.

Man has been on earth .00075% of Earth's age or 300,000 years.
Earth will continue to change after man is long gone.

The universe is dynamic. Suns supernova, galaxys collide, planets are formed and lost in blackholes daily.

Man is merely a brief observer, not the cause.


@jyro,

This argument --that we observe it happening, and so for that reason alone we must take action to mitigate it-- is insufficient.

For this reason: if there is some detrimental process afoot, it is not enough to merely "treat the symptoms". Oh no --the SOURCE of the problem has to be identified and then either corrected or eradicated.

If your well drew from an aquifer that was being contaminated by a leaking hazardous waste containment pond, would it be enough to just know that your drinking water was being poisoned?

contd
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2012
Caliban, I don't think one should bother with such commenters. They are only trying to imply society wasn't large enough to affect the climate in the first place.

They are the ones that would drink from the water just to show you that no neighbor could affect their own water. Meanwhile their family will die of thirst.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2012
I have an IQ of 180 ... Yes, we are having climate change, and possibly, global warming. Unknown to those who post about this subject, is the fact that everything that is happening now has happened several times since the last ice age, most recently, from about 800 AD to 1200 AD. We did not cause any of these past warming events and we are not causing the current one. Of course, it seems to have escaped the notice of all of you, that satellite data shows that there has been NO WARMING OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS.
/

Ah, the classic "its happen before so its all natural". Point is Mr Genius, previous episodes had natural causes. I'd appreciate details of your qualifications to state "we are not causing the current one". Reading Mr Watts's Blog doesn't count. You obviously think gigatonnes of GHG's emitted by humans each year has no effect.
Caliban
3 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2012
contd

Or would the more effective, reasonable course be to insist that not only the polluter cease and desist, but also help share the cost of mediation?

For another example --if your child was abducted while walking home from school and raped, strangled and stabbed to death, would it suffice to decide that, from that day forward, you would personally drop off and pick up your remaining children from school each day? Wouldn't you want to find the person responsible, and help try to develop some policy or program to put in place to minimize or eliminate the risk of the same thing happening again?

Effects are not independent of their causes. And yes, climate change has multiple inputs, but it is the clear Anthropogenic input that we are trying to address here, since it is the component that we DO have a chance of mitigating or eliminating as not only just A cause, but THE cause of the worst of the climate change that we are experiencing.

Fossil fuel use being the chief culprit.

Caliban
3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2012
No need since it is already Observed to be happening.

"Not one single IPCC warning says it "WILL" happen" - YouYouYouTard

Do you intend to remain an Idiot for the rest of your life?


Hahaha.

Good job there, Vendicar.

I've come to the conclusion that there are two types of idiots --the congenital type, and the self inflicted type.

I believe you may have just identified a previously unknown third type, however: one that --in addition to being of the classic congenital variety-- compounds the condition through the sin of self-inflicted idiocy.

A ConAutogenital idiot, if you will...

Claudius
1.9 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2012
Let's see... Looking at the graph, there is an obvious plateau since 1998. Also, Phil Jones and others have admitted to the plateau.

.... lets see. Can you see the "obvious plateaus" depicted by the blue lines in the following regression done multiple times over short time scales?


The regression line covers the period from 1992 to present, and it shows an increase. A regression line from 1998 to present would not show an increase. As mentioned before, Phil Jones and others have acknowledged it has been a plateau, reluctantly.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (21) Dec 18, 2012
I have an IQ of 180 (I've taken several IQ tests and answered every question correctly.)


Well then, I guess that just cuts the debate off. There is no intelligent response to that.

I'm a "barely functional idiot" so would allow me to ask a really moronic question?

Should we take your word for it? I'm wondering if ya can prove it to us.

Psst, let idiotically anticipate your response: "I don't care if you believe me or not, it makes no difference to me whether you believe me or not."

To which I would respond: "If ya don't care and it makes no difference to ya, then why the hell would ya take the time to say it?"

So, either I chanced upon a one in several millions sort of person. Or I chanced upon a one in ten sort of person who has delusions of grandiosity. I wonder what the Schrödinger equation would say about the probability of that?
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2012

The regression line covers the period from 1992 to present, and it shows an increase. A regression line from 1998 to present would not show an increase. As mentioned before, Phil Jones and others have acknowledged it has been a plateau, reluctantly.

No, the regression is shown from 1973 - the correct period of time to reveal natural variation in climate as "noise" within the broad warming signal. The plateau as is shown in that graph and it's multiple regressions "a la denier" is entirely predictable as an outcome of same and does not need to be admitted by anybody. It is obvious in the data and expected by the science ( though not predictable at present ).
PeterD
1.4 / 5 (19) Dec 18, 2012
I have an IQ of 180 (I've taken several IQ tests and answered every question correctly.)


Well then, I guess that just cuts the debate off. There is no intelligent response to that.

I'm a "barely functional idiot" so would allow me to ask a really moronic question?

Should we take your word for it? I'm wondering if ya can prove it to us.

Psst, let idiotically anticipate your response: "I don't care if you believe me or not, it makes no difference to me whether you believe me or not."

To which I would respond: "If ya don't care and it makes no difference to ya, then why the hell would ya take the time to say it?"

So, either I chanced upon a one in several millions sort of person. Or I chanced upon a one in ten sort of person who has delusions of grandiosity. I wonder what the Schrödinger equation would say about the probability of that?

If you do have a brain, you can quickly verify the statements I made. The first sentence in your last paragraph is true.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 18, 2012
If you do have a brain,


The jury is still on that,,,, but,,,,

you can quickly verify the statements I made.


For the sake of argument, let's assume my brain is only of the "barely functioning idiot" sort, less than 130 IQ,,,, How could I "quickly verify the statements' you made?

The first sentence in your last paragraph is true.


To be as polite as I can,,, I just can't stop laughing long enough to believe that.
PeterD
1.6 / 5 (20) Dec 18, 2012
I guess that proves my point. I won't waste any more time on an idiot.
djr
5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2012
PeterD - "If you do have a brain, you can quickly verify the statements I made. The first sentence in your last paragraph is true."

The statement you made was that we are not causing the warming this time. This conflicts with the generally held scientific view (ie the scientists who are studying this shit - and probably have at least 190 IQ's). So your remarkable claim - surely needs remarkable evidence - which you fail to produce. Unless of course you are simply engaging in a logical falacy - that because it happened in the past - it could not be caused by human activity this time. Your IQ should allow you to see the inacurracy of that logic right?
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (19) Dec 18, 2012
I guess that proves my point.


Only a genius could find a proof in that.

I won't waste any more time on an idiot.


Ya want to bet on that?

axemaster
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2012
Lol... you guys have no idea what the IQ scale is, do you? Most scientists fall in the 120-140 range. Above 140 is considered "genius" level (though of course defining genius is difficult).

Honestly, it's sad to see such a ridiculous argument in the age of Google.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (19) Dec 18, 2012
Lol... you guys have no idea what the IQ scale is, do you? Most scientists fall in the 120-140 range.


I'm a "barely functional idiot" (less than 130 IQ) and even someone as stupid as me knew that. I'm still laughing at the idiocy of the smart man.

I still want to know why he thought it important to add "I have an IQ of 180 (I've taken several IQ tests and answered every question correctly)" to the debate.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2012
From the article;
Human role in climate change now certain

Yeah, that has been obvious for a long time. Anyone with IQ over 10 should know that!

VendicarD
4 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2012
Referring to the campaign of GW denialism Full disclosure writes...

"Pure politics..." - Full Disclosure

Meanwhile...

http://www.woodfo...93/trend
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2012
What is funny about CloudousTard...

"A regression line from 1998 to present would not show an increase." - CloudousTard

Is that two days ago he was shown a plot from 1998 which showed the very warming he denies a plot will show, and even responded to it.

Now he claims the plot he commented on 2 days ago, won't show now, what it showed then.

Here is that plot....

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

Is CloudyousTard simply an idiot? A bad liar? Or mentally ill?
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2012
Poor PaulD (Claimed IQ of 180), just can't seem to figure out that satellites don't measure surface temperatures, and never have.

They measure total column brightness through the entire air column that they are looking through.

Surface temperatures are inferred from the brightness.

"Of course, it seems to have escaped the notice of all of you, that satellite data shows that there has been NO WARMING OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS." - PaulD

Someone with an IQ of 180 should know that 15 years is not long enough a time period to draw conclusions regarding the extent or direction of climate change.

What is your excuse for not knowing that PeterDTard?
FrankHerbert
2.9 / 5 (18) Dec 18, 2012
I have an IQ of 180 (I've taken several IQ tests and answered every question correctly.)
-PeterD
You clearly don't understand how an IQ test works. Have you even taken one? Also 130 (132 if the standard deviation is 16) is considered genius. 100 is always average for reference.

IQ tests breakdown around 180 anyway because IQ is purely statistical. It's not how many questions you answer correctly but how you answer them compared to other people. At IQs of 180 there are so few people to compare results to that it's at best a guess.

Also, having an IQ of 180 doesn't protect a person from being dead wrong.
VendicarD
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2012
Poor Claudius... He has now been shown at least three times that global average temperatures have risen since then...

"Let's see... the plateau is for 16 years, not 22. Looking at the graph above, there is an obvious plateau since 1998." - ClaudiusTard

I will show him again...

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2012
I'm in the 180 range and I can't spell for shit.
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2012
I was misdiagnosed.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (18) Dec 19, 2012
At the risk of interfering with this illuminating mudfest...
There is a intuitive, predictive model, involving geography, weather patterns basic understanding of the gross process of heat transport grom the equator to the poles, that anyine really interested in can make their own decisions with... Really, it easily predicts the return to historical weather patterns in the Pac NW after sever 90's weather. More but less strong hurricanes, etc., just by investing a little of your time in investigating, you know what has happened, what will happen, and for example, you'll recognize that this year's warm weather trends are from Sunspot activity, not GW.
www. facebook.com/#!/groups/454689344557455/
Now that I read it again, I have simplified it some, you'll need to provide your own null hypothesis, for example, but that's part of the fun of the model, it's as complex as you want it.
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 19, 2012
Apparently alchemy and climate science don't mix. There is hard science that takes in account, all of the elements of natural variability that we are aware of (and people with...ahem 180 IQ's) cite for the warming and cooling periods of the past million years, then factor in the additional PROVEN forcings like increasing CO2 levels substantially above the variability of the last million years. Then, through a proven IR absorbtion spectrum, the net energy gain from this one forcing alone can be calculated. This is why it is mentioned in the article and echoed in the post section. The alchmeist should have read all the posts prior to commenting.

If PeterD has a 180 IQ, someone should have actually suggested to him to read some educational material prior to letting him log on....because that first post would indicate he has been locked in a closet with a rubiks cube and simon (for lighting) until he escaped to post that garbage.
PeterD
1 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2012
If any of you morons are capable of doing a Google search, just type in: do satellites show global warming. All the answers you get show that there has been none for the last 15 years. Maybe you can formulate your own question to find out when the Vikings discovered Greenland. You will find out that we were having a global warming period then, and Greenland looked then, just about as it does now. That's why they called it Greenland!
PeterD
1 / 5 (17) Dec 19, 2012
Further, ice cores taken from the Greenland ice cap, which has been there for more than 160,000 years show, as I said, that there have been several global warming periods since the last Ice Age. This has been confirmed all over the world, by soil studies, sediment studies, glacial studies,Etc:Etc;Etc.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2012
If any of you morons are capable of doing a Google search, just type in: do satellites show global warming. All the answers you get show that there has been none for the last 15 years. Maybe you can formulate your own question to find out when the Vikings discovered Greenland. You will find out that we were having a global warming period then, and Greenland looked then, just about as it does now. That's why they called it Greenland!

Are you a genius parrot perhaps?
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.4 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2012
Further, ice cores taken from the Greenland ice cap, which has been there for more than 160,000 years show, as I said, that there have been several global warming periods since the last Ice Age. This has been confirmed all over the world, by soil studies, sediment studies, glacial studies,Etc:Etc;Etc.


You mean the glacier that's been shrinking at an increasing rate in the last decade? ==> http://phys.org/n...ets.html
rubberman
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2012
If PeterD has a 180 IQ, so do NOTParker, obamasocks and ritchie guy.

I apologize to all of you for bashing the things you said which at the time I thought were rediculous, and clearly must have been spot on!

"and Greenland looked then, just about as it does now. That's why they called it Greenland! "

Like the 180IQ points behind the above statement, clearly spot on.
My dumbass would have called it Greywhiteland...cause of the rocks and ice ya see....hyuk.
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2012
and Greenland looked then, just about as it does now. That's why they called it Greenland!

PeterD

" In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, "Because," said he, "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.""
Saga of Erik the Red

The name was chosen to encourage other settlers. In reality the Speculum regale describe the Greenlanders as "the men without bread" as it was too cold to grow wheat
http://www.gutenb...m#chap_2
http://www.archiv...djvu.txt

Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2012
If any of you morons are capable of doing a Google search, just type in: do satellites show global warming. All the answers you get show that there has been none for the last 15 years. Maybe you can formulate your own question to find out when the Vikings discovered Greenland. You will find out that we were having a global warming period then, and Greenland looked then, just about as it does now. That's why they called it Greenland!


I know for certain that you have an IQ of 180, because you told me you did. So why are you pretending to be so stupid?

Are pretending to be ignorant of science just to make us "barely functional morons" feel better?
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2012
Further, ice cores taken from the Greenland ice cap, which has been there for more than 160,000 years show, as I said, that there have been several global warming periods since the last Ice Age. This has been confirmed all over the world, by soil studies, sediment studies, glacial studies,Etc:Etc;Etc.


Since you have an IQ of 180, then maybe you can tell us "barely functional morons" what caused each different warming period? Are every one of them triggered by the same event? Is there anyway conceivable way they could have different causes?

Oh, and don't worry about using three or syllable words, I've got a good dictionary.
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 19, 2012
What's a syllable?

Is that when you say something silly and are liable for it? I just don't get this complicated stuff.....
djr
5 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2012
PeterD "Further, ice cores taken from the Greenland ice cap, which has been there for more than 160,000 years show, as I said, that there have been several global warming periods since the last Ice Age. This has been confirmed all over the world, by soil studies, sediment studies, glacial studies,Etc:Etc;Etc."

No one is questioning this fact - as has been pointed out to you - leaving the conclusion that your are just being obtuse. The question we are asking is 'how do you know it is not caused by human activity?' - Even if the warming we are currently experiencing is 100% natural - we still have to live with the consequences - so it behooves us to study it right? Just in case there is some bad stuff in there.
rubberman
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2012
Q, I liked your comments so I tried to log in and rate you from my phone, those 1's were supposed to be 5's....in case you care about the ratings....touch screens...
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (23) Dec 19, 2012
I believe it's time to give these Global Warming Alarmist, WIN.
Not because they are right, but because there is no having a decent conversation with these Turds.

So, now that all their "science" has confirmed the globe is warming, how do we solve the problem. Well, I would like to suggest that all the millions, that are now wasted in research by these Turds to prove it is warming, be now diverted to practical initiatives, like alternative energy, better fuel efficiency etc. If these alarmist turds truly believe, then they would not have any objection.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 19, 2012
I believe it's time to give these Global Warming Alarmist, WIN.
Not because they are right, but because there is no having a decent conversation with these Turds.

So, now that all their "science" has confirmed the globe is warming, how do we solve the problem. Well, I would like to suggest that all the millions, that are now wasted in research by these Turds to prove it is warming, be now diverted to practical initiatives, like alternative energy, better fuel efficiency etc. If these alarmist turds truly believe, then they would not have any objection.


Look, y'all --yet another one "surfaces"-- this must mean that the subspecies Homo ConAutogenitalis Idioticus is a very recent mutation.

We can only hope that it is a detrimental mutation and that the subspecies will quickly succumb to its maladaptive traits and suffer a mercifully swift extinction.

ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2012
"The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia."
http://rt.com/new...ure-379/
1938, again.
A major hurricane hit the USA in New England.
High temperature records were broken and there were major droughts.
Sounds familiar?
Could there be some sort of NATURAL cycle?
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2012
"The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia."
http://rt.com/new...ure-379/
1938, again.

A major hurricane hit the USA in New England.
High temperature records were broken and there were major droughts.


Nice job of uncovering a non-existent correlation, again, Swenson.

Simply typing two descriptions of weather phenomena in adjacent paragraphs doesn't establish or prove any relationship between them.

The only ACTUAL correlation you've uncovered is the relationship you've "exposed" in the second paragraph, which any moron --with the notable exception of yourself-- would have predicted.

Ye Gods....

Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 20, 2012
I believe it's time to give these Global Warming Alarmist, WIN.
Not because they are right, but because there is no having a decent conversation with these Turds.


Thank you for recognizing the use of logic and facts gathered through laborious research cannot be over come by burying your head deeper into the sand and conceding defeat; as the victors here, we the proponents of science, will allow your disillusioned view that we are wrong and accept your surrender. In the long run, the facts will be recorded and your childish assertions of error will fade into obscurity; Thank you for conceding, I assume this means you will cease posting cherry-picked data, ad hominems, and blatant lies?

<3 <3 =^-^=
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2012
"The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia."
http://rt.com/new...ure-379/


Stronger than usual ( plus further west ) siberian high. Probably caused by earlier/greater build up of Autumn/early winter Eurasian snowfall. In turn caused by warmer SST's in the Kara, Laptev and East Siberian seas that was a consequence of the record arctic ice melt this last summer. GW can/does cause regional cooling.
VendicarD
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2012
Yup. It is cold in Russia.

Like last year, we see below normal temps in Russia, above normal temps in North America.

Globally however, this year will rank as the 8'th warmest year ever recorded.

"The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia." - RyggTard

Just a few months ago, denialists were insisting that 1938 was the warmest year ever recorded.

What happened RyggTard. Has history changed since then or have you simply forgotten your earlier lies?

http://synoptic.e...anim.gif
VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2012
Direct measurements via microwave sounding units show a warming of 0.05'C over the period you mention.

"All the answers you get show that there has been none for the last 15 years." - PeterDTard

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

An an increase since 1996 as well.

http://www.woodfo...96/trend

Note the huge spike in atmospheric temps in 1998 caused by that years massive El-Nino.

Honest assessments of temperature change can not begin during anomalous excursions like the one which occurred in 1998, which is Surprise, Surprise, where you selected period starts.

The fact that you chose that starting point indicates that either you are willfully dishonest or have an IQ less than 180 that you have claimed, making you willfully dishonest.

So either way, you have now exposed yourself as being a liar.
VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2012
I remember ParkerTard also claiming to have an IQ of 180.

Interestingly he also used 1998 as the starting point for his dishonest misrepresentations about global warming trends.

"If PeterD has a 180 IQ, so do NOTParker, obamasocks and ritchie guy. " - Rubberman
VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2012
ParkerTard used to repeatedly tell the same lie as PeterDTard now repeats,

"That's why they called it Greenland!" - PeterDTard
VendicarD
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2012
Too bad Physorg doesn't have an IQ filter, so that people could filter out posts from others with IQ's less than 75.

That way no one would have to read PeterD's ignorance.
eko
1 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2012
Ya know: That's how science works. if you can't predict something 100% then you don't say "will".


I love watching the different scientific articles here on physorg showing the active definition of the workings of Science!

Many times finding the most amazing thing causes one to realize just how ignorant they really were in the first place.

works being described
VendicarD
5 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
http://www.youtub...ndscreen

This explains everything.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 20, 2012
One of the most significant changes humans can make if, AGW is in fact true, is to adopt a vegetarian diet. The "meat" industry creates 40% more CO2 emissions than pollution resultant from transportation.
"An average household would reduce the impact of their greenhouse gas emissions by more if they halved their meat consumption than if they halved their car usage, says Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://www.scienc...ing_more

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel Prize 1921
discouragedinMI
1 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2012
I just can't wait for how they link steady temperatures of the last 15 years to their models which are no longer in agreement. They should have some interesting explanations. I would like a better assessment of how and why they minimized temperature swings in the last 4500 years even when recent papers (of course none mention on here) have called into question tree ring data and interpretation along with mention of the global nature of the medieval warm period and little ice age. If memory recalls Dr. Mann believes it is only regional. There are still so many things about the atmosphere that we don't understand yet their models are infallible.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2012
Hey did y'all know that support/contrariness for GW is cyclical? Whenever the Sun dumps energy from Sunspot activity (~10 years) people decry the warm wet weather, as we move away, people scoff at the the very idea, obviously it's darn cold.
Depending on the source, and there are reliable sources on both sides, you can prove temperatures are increasing or decreasing. As Ben Kenobi would say "Your thermometers can deceive you, don't trust them."
Heating or cooling by thermometer are not significant measurables, the only relevant statistic is the measurable heat (enthalpy, entropy) in the world environment, not as temperatures, which change, have anomalies, normal variations, and other things "experts" throw out to confuse.
Measurable such as local humidity (ies), melted ice from glaciers and other heat reservoirs/dumps.
Focus on the germane variables and what has been happening is pretty clear, and predictable. I haven't been surprised since 1986.
Psiotic
1 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
This would be happening with, or without us. We may pose a very slight impact on the end result (which we haven't seen yet) but I seriously doubt that our cancerous way of life is a catalyst for all the new stuff we're seeing throughout the entire solar system...
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
Psiotic, cool name. But the amount of heat released by us, in the Northern Hemisphere alone, is equal to the difference between the Sun between a Sunspot year, and the Sun with normal activity. This is quantifiable, and additionally, released at the Earth's surface.
To rephrase, we have the same influence as seasons on the Sun.
XQZME
1 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2012
Part 1
This is a shot a cross the bow. The alarmists are desperate. The leak is undermining their cash cow. How can man made CO2 cause global warming when real world data in both the long and short term shows a negative correlation between CO2 and global temperature?

The HADLEY CRU global climate database shows that in the last 16 years while CO2 has increased by 8.3%, global temperature has decreased at the rate of 0.12C per century. At beginning of this interglacial CO2 decreased while global temperature rapidly increased until 8,000 years. For the last 7,200 years CO2 increased from 255 ppm to 395 ppm while global temperature decreased by 2C to 7C depending on latitude. In the four prior interglacials, CO2 was 100 ppm less than now while Global temperature was 2C warmer than now. Last year the IPCC stated that the effect of manmade CO2 is below the noise level of natural climate driving forces (over 20) and may actually be cooling the earth.
XQZME
1 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2012
Part 2:
The following graphs show these negative correlations very clearly.
http://www.climat...omparing global temperature estimates

There are over 2 dozen climate drivers as graphed and explained here.
http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf

See a near 100% correlation between sun spots and ocean temperature graphed here. Sun spots increase > ocean temps increase > ocean currents change > wind currents change > land temps change.
http://theresilie...i-sequel

Based on IPCC AR4 assumptions if the U.S. stopped emitting all CO2, global temperature would decrease by 0.08C by 2050 or 0.17 by 2100 and sea level would decrease by 0.6 cm by 2050 and 1.8 cm by 2100. However, the growth of emission by other countries would replace the U.S. deficit within 7 years. Under newer assumptions, the numbers are halved. See the link.
http://scienceand...ers/orig
FMM
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2012
Saying the same thing multiple times does not increase confidence in the statement, and it should not increase confidence in that statement.

No one expects the IPCC to stray from their agenda.

Yea -- that's the problem Both sides are mainly political rather than scientific, and I tend to blame the proponents because they got in bed too quickly with environmental extremists and an anti-development agenda. Some of their behavior has destroyed credibility with many.

Still, it seems the warming is real and it is a bit silly to say it isn't CO2 associated. Its just that it doesn't seem the warming is not going to be anywhere near as nasty as we hear and may even be beneficial.

I am not pretty much persuaded that keeping politics out of it and letting technology replace fossil fuels naturally (which is bound to happen anyway) will be enough.
VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
Poor Tardie Boy. His sunspot correlation doesn't seem to be working any more.

http://www.woodfo...ormalise

"See a near 100% correlation between sun spots and ocean temperature graphed here." - TardieBoy

What happened, Moron?
VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
Looks like an increase of 0.1'C over the period that TardieBoy lies about.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

"The HADLEY CRU global climate database shows that in the last 16 years while CO2 has increased by 8.3%, global temperature has decreased at the rate of 0.12C per century." - TardieBoy

What happened, Liar?

VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
Who is TardieBoy's source for his nonsense?

"Doug L. Hoffman has worked professionally as a mathematician, a computer programmer, an engineer, a computer salesman, a scientist, and a college professor."

Bahahahahahahahah......

Moron....
VendicarD
4.4 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
Not even close.

"To rephrase, we have the same influence as seasons on the Sun." - Alchemist

The difference in the mean solar radiation received by the earth over a typical sunspot cycle is around 1.5 watts per square meter.

Averaged over the entire surface of the earth, the total energy consumed by man comes in at 2.7 E-5 watts per square meter.

So you are wrong by a factor of about 56,000

Well done.

VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
What are you jabbering about Pathetico?

"I just can't wait for how they link steady temperatures of the last 15 years to their models which are no longer in agreement." - Pathetico

You see... The modelers are scientists, while you are just an ignoramus.

The scientists you see, fully understand something that you can't comprehend, specifically that the the model output must be statistical in nature, since the climate system is self modifying.

So the modelers run their simulations multiple times with slightly differing initial conditions and note how the statistical distributions of the basic climate patterns and parameters change.

The model output is therefore a statistical distribution which can be translated into a mean and a series of confidence limits.

They typically do this over several CO2 emission scenario's in order to give policy makers a view of how altering CO2 emissions changes the statistical output of the modeling process.

Current global surface temperatures CONT..
VendicarD
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
CONT... remain within the bounds projected by all 4 versions of the IPCC reports.

In addition, attribution studies of the evolution of solar output, volcanic eruptions, ElNino and other natural events that have some minor influence over global temperatures, can and have been identified and quantified.

When subtracted from the global temperature series, the resulting trend is essentially linear with no variance in the last 20 years from the previous 20.

Here is a real scientist who has taken the time to sum up the science for you know nothing, blowhard, airheads.

Educate yourself... Moron...

http://vimeo.com/55930802

http://vimeo.com/55930801

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2012
The difference in the mean solar radiation received by the earth over a typical sunspot cycle is around 1.5 watts per square meter.

Averaged over the entire surface of the earth, the total energy consumed by man comes in at 2.7 E-5 watts per square meter.

Nice to see you put in some effort. But WHY would you average it over the entire surface of the Earth? Why not put your hand above a candle and average it over the surface of your body? That is misleading. Plus, 56000? I may be stupid, but I am not 56k stupid. I get 1.18 watts/m2 for fossils fuels, but we used different assumptions. For a quick calculation, try consumption of gasoline vs Sun's energy, and you are still closer to 1 than is comfortable.
As usual you can check out a cool and predictive model at facebook.com/groups/454689344557455/500528436640212/
The particular I am referring to is "'GW' quantified and obvious.
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2012
Because we are comparing the energy liberated by man from chemical and nuclear forces, to the energy falling on the earth's surface, as received by the sun, and using the comparison to judge the impact on the atmosphere which covers the entire earth's surface.

"But WHY would you average it over the entire surface of the Earth? Why not put your hand above a candle and average it over the surface of your body? " - Alchemist

Sad, that you can't even understand grade school level scientific thinking.

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2012
Because we are comparing the energy ...entire earth's surface.

Sad, that you can't even understand grade school level scientific thinking.

Dude, that's because the phenomena we're discussing aren't usually introduced until 1st year college and grad school; threshold reactions/responses and non-equilibrium mechanics. By your argument if we burnt all fossil fuels at the same place at the same time every day, it would not affect the climate differently than it does now. Let's say we put that at the edge of the Antarctic, for example.
I don't know why you feel the need to add insults to your comments, but two grossly incorrect statements, along with two demeaning remarks... I judge you unworthy of this reader.
Eugene
1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2012
I see the that the actual real debate is over (if it ever started, refering to East Anglia researchers efforts to suppress opposing views in journals). Lets jump to the real solution. Who is going to invent the technology to terminate humans without generating greenhouse gases. How many of the 7 billion humans on this planet are going to volunteer to be terminated. Who decides which humans are to be terminated. Lottery system anyone.
axemaster
5 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2012
By your argument if we burnt all fossil fuels at the same place at the same time every day, it would not affect the climate differently than it does now. Let's say we put that at the edge of the Antarctic, for example.

Amusingly, if we did that, it would in fact be largely indistinguishable from the current situation (other than creating a localized kill zone)... Thanks for showing us that you really don't get it at all.

How many of the 7 billion humans on this planet are going to volunteer to be terminated. Who decides which humans are to be terminated. Lottery system anyone.

Boy, I'm sure glad idiots don't have any real power in the world, or we'd have all been nuked a long time ago.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2012
Eugene. Deniers make strawmwn while serious folk are looking for and implementing solutions as best they can despite the denialists silly/sabotaging ways reminiscent of Tobacco, Pharmaceutical, Asbestos, Ozone Layer, Exhaust/Lead Pollution, NRA etc Lobbies who have no interest in humanity, only in making blood-money profits for as long as they can...which means lying and confusing the public for as long as the 'suckers' and 'denialists' swallow their 'line'. Some people never learn from history, and many are born every minute to take the place of any who eventually do get wise to these unconscionable mercenary Lobbies and their paymasters. Shame on anyone so gullible despite evidence/history under your noses/at our fingertips. Or is it that you are part, and/or paid-for-shills, of such Lobbies who couldn't give a damn about you or your families or the future while they make profits and shear/confuse you 'sheep' and then move on to another when this denialist scam too is busted!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2012
Amusingly, if we did that, it would in fact be largely indistinguishable from the current situation (other than creating a localized kill zone)... Thanks for showing us that you really don't get it at all.

Hmmpf.
Here, the US alone consumes ~375e6 gal/day. There are ~1.2e8 joules/gal -> 4.5e16 joules/day. A nuke is around 1e15 joules.
This analogy is becoming a rabbit hole, but it should give you an idea the magnitudes we're talking about.
VendicarD
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
God kills 150,000 people die every day.

So every 20 days the world has the opportunity to reduce the worlds population by 3 million people, without killing anyone.

Every year God kills 60 million people.

So a 10 year halt to reproduction will decrease global population by around a half billion people.

A one child per family policy guarantees a reduction of global population by half in less than one human lifetime.

So in 150 years or so, global population can be taken down to 1.75 billion simply relying on God's rate of murdering people.

"Who decides which humans are to be terminated." - Eugene

God.